Doctoral programmes to disappear as an organisational form

"The programmes no longer contribute to ensuring high-quality research education, but have instead become an

administrative burden. Removing them is part of reducing unnecessary structures that serve no purpose," says KTH's Dean of Faculty Sofia Ritzén.

The organisation of research education into doctoral programmes was introduced in 2011. Each programme brings together doctoral students from one or more research subjects and is led by a programme director (PA). 

Has been questioned

Doctoral programmes were introduced to create greater cohesion and a better study environment for doctoral students, improve the quality assessment of research education, and bring together small research subjects to create a critical mass of doctoral students.  

“They served their purpose initially in certain environments, but have not yet fully taken hold, and over time the structure has come to be questioned,” Ritzén says.

Two years ago, the School of Engineering Sciences (SCI) underwent a restructuring process in which the school's doctoral programmes were merged into four, divided according to departments. According to Oscar Tjernberg, Director of Third-Cycle Education at SCI, the decision was based on quality assessments and programme reviews.

Students and employees

“Research education is a bit special because doctoral students are both students and employees. This makes it tricky to know who is responsible when things don’t work. Department heads and deans are decision-makers, while another channel handles academic matters. It’s a bit complex. We concluded that the parts that belong in the line organisation should remain with the person responsible,” Tjernberg says.

The change sparked a discussion about the actual purpose of doctoral programmes, which led to the programmes being equated with the departments and the vice head of departments taking over responsibility as programme directors.

“The instinctive reaction among doctoral students and faculty was that this couldn’t be done. You can’t just remove the programmes – how would they be replaced? Once we clarified what constitutes a programme and what constitutes a subject, and explained that it has always been the research subject that forms the basis of the education and that it is the research subject that appears on the diploma, there was no longer any question about it,” Tjernberg says.

Focus evaluation

When the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) also wanted to change its research education organisation last year and create a single doctoral programme, KTH's Faculty Council decided to conduct a focus evaluation among KTH's FA, PA and doctoral students.

The results show that the doctoral programme organisation is considered to involve unnecessary administration while not fulfilling any real function. There is also confusion about the difference between doctoral programmes, research subjects and specialisations within the subjects. Seventeen of the 26 programmes cover only one subject, and although the programmes may be particularly valuable for smaller research subjects, according to the Research Education Committee's report, it is unclear whether the added value outweighs the costs.

Going back

KTH's Faculty Council therefore proposes to phase out the doctoral programmes and return to a system based on research subjects. KTH's President is proposed to rewrite the guidelines governing doctoral programmes, and the change is expected to come into effect at the turn of the year 2026/27.

"What we want to retain, namely that each PA has a quality council and that supervisors and doctoral students ensure high quality in research education, we can retain for each department and subject. We must ensure that it is regulated in the same way as doctoral programmes are today, and we must resolve how admission to doctoral programmes should be handled for doctoral students who are already enrolled at KTH," Ritzén says.

Text: Sabina Fabrizi